9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mployee, would amount to wrongful withholding that property giving rise to an actionable claim under Section 630 of the said Act. A broader, liberal as also a purposeful interpretation has to be given to Section 630 in furtherance of the object and purpose for which this legislation has been engrafted. The scheme clearly shows that respondent has become the owner of the quarter in question as also the employer of the father of the petitioner; all rights and liabilities of the transferor-company stood vested with the transferee-company, i.e., respondent - This Court has already returned a finding on the first issue i.e. M/s Texmaco Limited being the transferee company and having taken over all assets and liabilities of the said Mill which has been approved not only by the Delhi High Court but also by the Kolkata High Court, it was well within its right to file this complaint. - time period could be extended for vacation of the quarter but he declined the offer and sought an order on merits stating that this revision petition be decided on its merits - Decided against Petitioner. - CRL.REV.P. 104/2014 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2014 - MS. INDERMEET KAUR AND INDERMEET KAUR, JJ. For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce was led. The complainant Radhey Shyam was examined as PW-1. He had proved the resolution of the company (Ex.PW-1/1) and power of attorney (Ex.PW-1/2) authorizing him to file and institute the complaint. No cross-examination of these two documents had been effected by the respondent. Letter Ex.PW-1/5 dated 28.12.1978 substantiated the fact that the father of the petitioner had been allotted this quarter on a license basis on monthly charges of Rs.7/- apart from the electricity and water charges; para 5 of this letter specifically postulated that this quarter was to be vacated on cessation of his employment or any violation of terms and conditions of the license. This letter was signed by the father of the petitioner. It is an undisputed document. No argument has been addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score either. One DW had also been examined. 7. The admitted position being that the father of the petitioner had been allotted this quarter on 28.12.1978 while he was working with the Mill which was since 01.11.1976. 8. Further facts reveal that M/s Texmaco Limited had acquired proprietary rights in respect of this Mill on 03.01.1983 in Company Petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, it has been pointed out that pursuant to this scheme of arrangement M/s Texmaco Limited had filed complaints against other employees which had been dismissed in default and a criminal leave petition had been filed against these orders of acquittal which criminal leave petition has been converted into an appeal i.e. Crl. Appeal No.1214/2012; submission being that that appeal would govern the facts of those cases alone. 12. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused. 13. This Court is sitting in revisional jurisdiction. There are two facts findings returned by the two fact finding courts below i.e. order of the Magistrate dated 26.10.2013 which has appreciated the facts after delving into the evidence which had been led by the respective parties. The order of the learned Magistrate convicting the petitioner under Section 630 of the Companies Act had been endorsed by the second fact finding Court which was the appellate Court of the Sessions Judge and which had again gone into the details of the facts which had been pleaded as also the legal submissions made by the respective parties; the order of the Magistrate had been reaffirmed. 14. This Court sitting in rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... colour and content from such an 'employee or officer' in so far as the occupation and possession of the property belonging to the company is concerned. The failure to deliver property back to the employer on the termination, resignation, superannuation or death of any employee, would amount to wrongful withholding that property giving rise to an actionable claim under Section 630 of the said Act. A broader, liberal as also a purposeful interpretation has to be given to Section 630 in furtherance of the object and purpose for which this legislation has been engrafted. The intent of this legislation has been noted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 1995 RLR 232 (SC) Smt. Abhilasha V. K. Jain Vs. Cox and Kings and Smt. Sunita Bhagat Vs. Voltas Ltd . and the following observations are relevant: 'If an employee or a past employee or anyone claiming the right of occupancy under them, were to continue to hold the property belonging to the company, after the right to be in occupation has ceased for one reason or the other, it would not only create difficulties for the company, which shall not be able to allot that property to its other employees but would als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and duties of the said transferee company; and 3. That all proceedings now pending by or against the said transferor company be continued by or against the said transferee company; and 4. That all contracts, deeds, bonds, agreements and instruments of whatever kind or nature relating to the said units of M/s Birla Cottons shall continue to be in full force and effect against or in favour of Texmaco as the case may be and enforced as fully and effectively as if Texmaco instead of Birla Cotton had been a party thereto. 22. Moreover in Smt. Kamla Rani v. Texmaco Ltd. AIR 2007 Delhi 147a Bench of this Court had relied upon the same scheme of arrangement dated 01.03.1983 to arrive at a fact finding that assets of the Mill stood merged with M/s Texmaco Limited which was the transferee company and the successor in interest of the said Mill. Thus the first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner must necessarily fail. The complainant having stepped into the shoes of the said Mill by virtue of this scheme of arrangement which stood sanctioned not only by the Delhi High Court but also by the Kolkata High Court, M/s Texmaco Limited was well within its right to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
